John M. Garesché State University of New York at New Paltz
Using laptops in the classroom is an expanding realm with great promise, which may expand considerably with the release of even cheaper iPad style tablets. With any significant technology adoption, there are significant potential problems, and this article reviews implementation of a one-to-one laptop initiative in 5th-8th grade classrooms to add to technology implementation knowledge. Since this study occurred before the introduction of the iPad in 2010, and subsequent widespread adoption of what we call tablet technology today, the use of the term tablet should not be misinterpreted: these were presumably touch screen laptops. Overall the study is limited in its usefulness due to limited data, poor methodology, lack of detail, and the ongoing rapid development of both hardware and software. The study provides lasting benefit in reviewing how teachers and students implemented and adapted to the computers compared to expectations. The study lacks assessment data since the small size of the study and lack of resources resulted in a lack of capacity to eliminate the effect of independent causal factors from the effect on assessment by the introduction of the laptops. This study took place in a private K-8 school in a southwestern U.S. metropolitan area, probably in Texas. This study used observations of classrooms by graduate students during the Fall of 2007 – during the first year of the rollout, followed by teacher surveys and interviews the following spring. Here is an overview of the specifics presented: 1) Every student got their own laptop computer. The make and model of the computer was not given, although contextual clues in the article indicate that it was likely a windows tablet. They simply described it as a “tablet laptop (notebook)” with “contemporary productivity software (word processing and spreadsheet).” In the findings they also refer to presentation software and “One Note,” indicating they were using Microsoft Office. 2) Part of the purpose of the initiative was to eliminate textbooks. 3) All students also had wireless internet access, although it was not fully rolled out at the time of the observations. 4) The initiative was approved by the school board in 2005, and the next year was taken to gradually initiate teachers in to the program, involving them in planning and implementation and sending teacher teams to relevant conferences and workshops. 5) Students were provided with computers during the second year and were required to use them in the classroom and at home. 6) Students were allowed to personalize their computers, including with pictures and IM software and were allowed to check them out over the summer.
One of the contributions of the study is the description of how teachers reacted and how results were different than expectations. The study sought to answer four questions: 1) How did students and teachers use the technology?
Student reported using One Note to take notes and did significant word processing and communication (IM and e-mail). There was vague and limited information about teacher use.
2) What was technology’s observed effect on teaching and learning?
Improved interaction between teachers and: students, parents and other teachers, and between students. Improved engagement, interest, and involvement in both independent and collaborative work. Improved problem solving, self-efficacy, and work value.
3) How much integration did in fact take place?
Data indicates more integration is taking place than expected
4) What was the leadership framework?
A multi-layered framework of support provided by the administration was committed and strong, and teachers clearly appreciated the collaborative nature, training and excellent support.
The authors found four themes in the results of the interviews: 1) Engaging and accommodating: students were more engaged and worked together well in using the computers, doing projects with the computers, and helping each other with software or hardware problems without being condescending to each other. 2) Access: Significantly more information was immediately available to the students and the methods of collaboration increased – not decreased (from hiding behind computer screens) as some teachers feared could happen. 3) Improvements in instructional effectiveness: despite fears by many older teachers regarding their inability to learn the technology due to their age and inexperience, a strong level of inclusion in planning and desire to see the program work for the students made a the acclimation much easier. They also desired better communication with the parents. 4) Technology that enhances learning: teachers unanimously felt benefits were being realized both in and outside the classroom. Teachers felt “freed” from the expectation of being the content knowledge expert. Over all there was a more constructivist learning environment where teachers served more as guides.
At first blush, the article seems like an excellent review of an implementation with very official sounding and sound methodology. However, on deeper reading the article was a significant disappointment: it really was vague and very limited. The terminology was misleading and ill-defined: specifically the use of the term tablet which was never defined. The article was published the year before the realease of the first iPad’s established the current industry standard definition of a tablet, but they never actually described if it was a touch screen laptop, although that is generally interpreted. The overall quantity of data did not seem to justify the publishing of an article, and they did not make any attempt to gather assessment data. They pointed out that all data was gathered in the first year of implementation, but they failed to recognize the distortion that a new exciting program will have. Effective implementation has little bearing on long-term outcomes. So the resulting conclusions were fairly arbitrary and subjective. In addition, they identified four questions at the beginning, and answered four similar but not identical questions in a different order at the end. And they didn’t provide specific data to support the subjective answers they provided. They actually provided better data from their cited sources than from their own data! The poor proof-checking and planning of the article indicated a low level of professionalism. The article does provide evidence for the importance of including teachers in the planning and implementation of technology so that they do not fear it and develop a positive attitude to making it work well for students. Other than the decent literature review in implementation studies, that was the only redeeming aspect of the article.
Maninger, R.M. & Holden, M.E. (2009, Fall). Put the textbooks away: Preparation and support for a middle school one-to-one laptop initiative. //American Secondary Education, 38(1)//, pp. 5-33.
(note the above link will only work when logged into EBCSO. The article is not otherwise available online)
John M. Garesché
State University of New York at New Paltz
Using laptops in the classroom is an expanding realm with great promise, which may expand considerably with the release of even cheaper iPad style tablets. With any significant technology adoption, there are significant potential problems, and this article reviews implementation of a one-to-one laptop initiative in 5th-8th grade classrooms to add to technology implementation knowledge. Since this study occurred before the introduction of the iPad in 2010, and subsequent widespread adoption of what we call tablet technology today, the use of the term tablet should not be misinterpreted: these were presumably touch screen laptops. Overall the study is limited in its usefulness due to limited data, poor methodology, lack of detail, and the ongoing rapid development of both hardware and software. The study provides lasting benefit in reviewing how teachers and students implemented and adapted to the computers compared to expectations. The study lacks assessment data since the small size of the study and lack of resources resulted in a lack of capacity to eliminate the effect of independent causal factors from the effect on assessment by the introduction of the laptops.
This study took place in a private K-8 school in a southwestern U.S. metropolitan area, probably in Texas. This study used observations of classrooms by graduate students during the Fall of 2007 – during the first year of the rollout, followed by teacher surveys and interviews the following spring. Here is an overview of the specifics presented:
1) Every student got their own laptop computer. The make and model of the computer was not given, although contextual clues in the article indicate that it was likely a windows tablet. They simply described it as a “tablet laptop (notebook)” with “contemporary productivity software (word processing and spreadsheet).” In the findings they also refer to presentation software and “One Note,” indicating they were using Microsoft Office.
2) Part of the purpose of the initiative was to eliminate textbooks.
3) All students also had wireless internet access, although it was not fully rolled out at the time of the observations.
4) The initiative was approved by the school board in 2005, and the next year was taken to gradually initiate teachers in to the program, involving them in planning and implementation and sending teacher teams to relevant conferences and workshops.
5) Students were provided with computers during the second year and were required to use them in the classroom and at home.
6) Students were allowed to personalize their computers, including with pictures and IM software and were allowed to check them out over the summer.
One of the contributions of the study is the description of how teachers reacted and how results were different than expectations. The study sought to answer four questions:
1) How did students and teachers use the technology?
- Student reported using One Note to take notes and did significant word processing and communication (IM and e-mail). There was vague and limited information about teacher use.
2) What was technology’s observed effect on teaching and learning?- Improved interaction between teachers and: students, parents and other teachers, and between students. Improved engagement, interest, and involvement in both independent and collaborative work. Improved problem solving, self-efficacy, and work value.
3) How much integration did in fact take place?- Data indicates more integration is taking place than expected
4) What was the leadership framework?- A multi-layered framework of support provided by the administration was committed and strong, and teachers clearly appreciated the collaborative nature, training and excellent support.
The authors found four themes in the results of the interviews:1) Engaging and accommodating: students were more engaged and worked together well in using the computers, doing projects with the computers, and helping each other with software or hardware problems without being condescending to each other.
2) Access: Significantly more information was immediately available to the students and the methods of collaboration increased – not decreased (from hiding behind computer screens) as some teachers feared could happen.
3) Improvements in instructional effectiveness: despite fears by many older teachers regarding their inability to learn the technology due to their age and inexperience, a strong level of inclusion in planning and desire to see the program work for the students made a the acclimation much easier. They also desired better communication with the parents.
4) Technology that enhances learning: teachers unanimously felt benefits were being realized both in and outside the classroom. Teachers felt “freed” from the expectation of being the content knowledge expert. Over all there was a more constructivist learning environment where teachers served more as guides.
At first blush, the article seems like an excellent review of an implementation with very official sounding and sound methodology. However, on deeper reading the article was a significant disappointment: it really was vague and very limited. The terminology was misleading and ill-defined: specifically the use of the term tablet which was never defined. The article was published the year before the realease of the first iPad’s established the current industry standard definition of a tablet, but they never actually described if it was a touch screen laptop, although that is generally interpreted. The overall quantity of data did not seem to justify the publishing of an article, and they did not make any attempt to gather assessment data. They pointed out that all data was gathered in the first year of implementation, but they failed to recognize the distortion that a new exciting program will have. Effective implementation has little bearing on long-term outcomes. So the resulting conclusions were fairly arbitrary and subjective. In addition, they identified four questions at the beginning, and answered four similar but not identical questions in a different order at the end. And they didn’t provide specific data to support the subjective answers they provided. They actually provided better data from their cited sources than from their own data! The poor proof-checking and planning of the article indicated a low level of professionalism.
The article does provide evidence for the importance of including teachers in the planning and implementation of technology so that they do not fear it and develop a positive attitude to making it work well for students. Other than the decent literature review in implementation studies, that was the only redeeming aspect of the article.